Once again...

I was right. You were wrong.

Supreme Court Rules The Second Amendment is an Individual Right (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

Chad Polenz
Infowars
June 27, 2008

You ask me why I listen to Alex Jones and infowars.com - well HERE’S why! He said the Supreme Court would rule "in favor" of gun owners but in actuality rule against them.

Notice that these justices say exactly what the Second Amendment states ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") but then through CLASSIC double-speak they say "even though it says it shall not be infringed, it shall be." In other words, "yes, you have a right to own guns but we have a right to infringe them."

Technically, if the justices followed the Amendment to the letter of the law it would get rid of ALL gun control across the board. But that’s never going to happen. I’m not dumb enough to think that any politician or judge in their right mind is going to strike down gun control entirely, although they should because that’s what the Constituition says.

So yeah, this might peel back SOME gun control but not all. They still say "the government may infringe your right to own a gun" even though the Second Amendment clearly states "shall NOT be infringed"

It doesn’t say UNREASONABLY infringed, it says flat-out it shall not be infringed!

But as is the case with the Constitution, everyone has a different interpretation. People think "the militia" mean the military, or the national guard. No, sorry liberals. The militia is EVERYONE! Who fought in the Revolutionary War? Regular people like you and I. Only 4% of the total American population were able to fight off the entire British Empire. We can do it again, that’s why I post these bulletins and blogs. It’s a grassroots effort - just a few people CAN make a difference.

Here’s a good example: remember in the Ben Affleck movie "Pearl Harbor" there’s a scene where FDR is briefed by the Joint Chiefs and one of the generals says "Mr. President, if the Japanese invaded California they could get all the way to Chicago before we could stop them." Now, I have no idea if that was true at the time, but this is EXACTLY the kind of scenario the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent. Imagine, even as recently at the 1940s if a foreign country invaded our soil they could get halfway across it. Well, if we had a regulated-militia we would never have to worry about this.

If you believe that ALL American citizens make up the militia you should be against all gun control across the board. If you think the second amendment only applies to police and military, well, you’re deluding yourself. And I know what you’re thinking, "you’re saying ex-cons, lunatics, and children should carry guns?" In an ideal world, yes, because this wouldn’t be a problem since everyone else would be armed to defend themselves against these people. Obviously, that’s never going to happen. I can’t honestly imagine a scenario in which every American citizen is allowed to walk around with a gun on their side at all times, much like the Old West or the setting of a Star Wars movie.

Don’t worry limp-wristed liberals and fake neo-cons, the gun control laws still on the books will work wonders to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and keep them IN the hands of street thugs, Mafia members and backwoods survivalist groups. Maybe instead of passing gun control laws we go after the people supplying the guns to these criminals? It’s like illegal immigrants, instead of just deporting them why not prosecute employers who hire them? That would solve that problem pretty darn quick.

So you you wonder why I listen to Alex Jones? He predicted this outcome TO THE LETTER of the ruling! It’s not a victory for gun owners, it’s a victory for double-speak government and double-think people everywhere.

-Chad

Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact. (DOUBLE-THINK!!)




The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," (YES IT DOES!! WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?!) Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns. (DOUBLE-THINK!!)

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found." (WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND, STEVENS? OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T KNOW WHO FOUGHT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR)

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." (THAT’S RIGHT, BREYER, PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN CRIME-RIDDEN AREAS DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. YET SOMEHOW THE CRIMINALS IN THOSE AREAS GOT THEIR HANDS ON GUNS AND YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS - RIGHT ON!!)

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. (MAYBE, BUT THEY STILL SAID THE GOVERNMENT MAY RESTRICT OUR RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE IN THE BIG PICTURE?)

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday’s outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said. (OH MY GOD, THESE CHICKEN-NECK LIBERALS MAKE ME NUTS. "PEOPLE DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES - THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE POLICE FOR!")

The capital’s gun law was among the nation’s strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his Capitol Hill home a short distance from the Supreme Court.

"I’m thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller said shortly after the opinion was announced.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller’s favor and struck down Washington’s handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right. (NEITHER IS EVEN A PARTIAL PROHIBITION - "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!")

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check. (NOTICE HOW A NEO-CON IS ACTUALLY FOR GUN CONTROL! THAT GOES TO SHOW HOW BIG OF FRAUDS THESE GUYS ARE! OF COURSE HE DOESN’T WANT AMERICANS ARMED - WE MIGHT ACTUALLY FIGHT BACK AGAINST HIS ENGINEERED POLICE STATE!)

White House reaction was restrained. "We’re pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday’s ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." (DOUBLE-THINK! DOUBLE-THINK! DOUBLE-THINK!!!)

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington’s city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense. (WORD!)

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court’s consideration of Washington’s restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

Swiftfox, you need to learn less is more. Your post was so long I didn't even bother to read it all.

Just wanted to point out:

Technically, if the justices followed the Amendment to the letter of the law it would get rid of ALL gun control across the board.
Is wrong. The Amendment reads that Militias are the reason for guns and your statement about how "everyone belongs to the militia" is also wrong.

ost able bodied adult white men belonged to the militia in small towns back then. The militia was not "everyone" and it was an organized institution. Some towns required all men to be in the militia, others did not.

But regardless of the intentions of the framers of the Second Amendment, we live in the 21st Century and the Supreme Court decides what is the Constitution. Lately, the Supreme Court has made decisions that make no sense at all, most of them 5 to 4 decisions.

To ever feel you are "vindicated" or "shown to be wrong" by a Supreme Court decision is laughable. The Supreme Court is a bunch of political hacks, who occasionally show some sense. This decision seems to make sense because it manages to find a somewhat sensible middle path. How exactly it will work out is another question to be seen.

The USA has failed to create any kind of sensible consistent gun policy, because the issue is way too politically charged.

It is also full of people with delusions that some foreign nation is going to invade the USA next week and the only thing that will stop them and save us all is every redneck with a gun.

Iran is currently planning to invade with the help of North Korea, just as soon as the next election puts into power the liberals who will outlaw guns. Their cunning plans to first eliminate the US Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, Coast Guard and every state National Guard are complete and very soon you will be bowing down before them. Their "Star Wars" nuclear missile defense program will also be ready at that time to prevent any nuclear retaliation for the invasion. So be ready to serve them as slaves, those they let live.

The decision was 5-4, so if this had been up before a different SCOTUS it probably could have gone the other way. It all comes down to 9 people's opinions. And if we'd had fewer conservative presidents over the last 20 years or so, I'm sure this would have been entirely different.

Because our forefathers were idiots and couldn't construct a clear couple of sentences this will probably be argued over until the last two remaining Americans shoot each other.

The Constitution Starts out with "We the people" : as in everyone

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It means everyone. If 50% of people carried guns the probability of being attacked by someone else with a gun goes way down because the criminal does not want to risk getting the one who has a gun, not having someone nearby with a gun shotting him either.

The whole point the founding fathers were making back in the day was to make sure that an oppressive government could not get control. That the government should serve the people, without being able to enslave them.

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson


"The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside ... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ... the weak will become prey to the strong."

Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."

JAMES MADISON


"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."

SAMUEL ADAMS

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention


"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

"A free people ought not only to be armed..."
GEORGE WASHINGTON


"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

arch 23, 1775:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

PATRICK HENRY

I think it's pretty clear what they meant.

List of signatories of the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signatories_of_the_United_States_Constitut ion)

for reference

There is no need to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It is as I have said it was, for years. The Supreme Court has so stated. I hope those of you commenting have actually read the decision (its a long one).

It make sense.

Licensing is not infringment, btw, and no Right is absolute. The brief reading of that infowars crap you posted demonstrated that they were not capable of basic reading comprehension, let alone understanding the theories and concepts raised.

In essence: Absolute bans on classes of guns in common use by the American public is unconstitutional. The language of the decision also strongly suggests that laws which unreasonably infringe on the public's ability to use those guns in defense of oneself and one's property is also unconstitutional. Reasonable restrictions, limitations, and "shall-issue" style licensing is not unconstitutional.

What does, yet, remain unclear is the issue of incorporation via the 14th Amendment. Previous decisions have ruled that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, but one of them pre-dates the 14th amendment, and the others pre-date the "due process" tests which the Court has developed over the years, from about the '40s. I suspect, when the issue comes before the Court, it will be incorporated as most of the Bill of Rights has been (iirc, only grand jury indictments, civil trial by jury, and the 2nd amendment have not yet been incorporated).

Noone during the signing of the Constitution intended it to permit every tom dick and harry to own a mortar or cannon. They did, however, intend everyone have the right to their muskets. I suspect we won't see Federal Regs against fully automatic weapons go away, but things like the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" will be more difficult to uphold.

For the time being, at least, I'm safe here in Ohio. Both the Federal and State Constitution have been held to protect my individual right to keep and bear arms.

The decision was 5-4, so if this had been up before a different SCOTUS it probably could have gone the other way. It all comes down to 9 people's opinions. And if we'd had fewer conservative presidents over the last 20 years or so, I'm sure this would have been entirely different.

Because our forefathers were idiots and couldn't construct a clear couple of sentences this will probably be argued over until the last two remaining Americans shoot each other.

I actually disagree.

y gut feeling, having read previous opinions on tangential subjects by Ginsberg and Stevens leads me to believe that the only reason it 5-4 was because it was going to be affirmed and they were making a point. I suspect both Ginsberg and Stevens believe the 2nd amendment is an individual right, at heart.

The very first paragraph of Stevens' dissent (which all 4 dissenting Justices joined):

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

So all 9 justices are apparently in agreement that it is an individual right. The question is the scope/extent of that right. It's not absolute, in the same way that speech is not absolute (libel/slander, for instance).